• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Senate be Eliminated

Samwise said:
So people are basically good?
Click to expand...

Heavens no, people are basically broken and sinful. Revolutionaries tend to think that they are naturally good, and need only to cast off the [insert whatever System Is Bad] to become so.
 
cpwill said:
Heavens no, people are basically broken and sinful. Revolutionaries tend to think that they are naturally good, and need only to cast off the [insert whatever System Is Bad] to become so.
Click to expand...

So these broken and sinful people are going to rule us? That doesn't sound cool.
 
Samwise said:
So these broken and sinful people are going to rule us? That doesn't sound cool.
Click to expand...

It's the only people we've got, at the moment.
 
cpwill said:
It's the one in which Anarchy works because people are basically Good.
Click to expand...

But here's where you say that people are basically good.
 
Samwise said:
But here's where you say that people are basically good.
Click to expand...

No, that was my problem with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Heinlein was a great science fiction writer, but, to an extent, he wasn't a science fiction writer. He was an amateur political scientist who wrote a new book every time he wanted to explore a different concept for how to organize society. In Harsh Mistress, he tried to describe a society in which there was no government or enforcement of individual liberty, but in which those liberties were nonetheless protected because - natch - everyone agreed that they should be, and those who abused those liberties were willing to bear the punishment that they incurred as a result.

Humans being broken and sinful, anarchy tends to last very, very, little time. Gangs take over, and the strongest and most violent rule.
 
cpwill said:
Humans being broken and sinful, anarchy tends to last very, very, little time. Gangs take over, and the strongest and most violent rule.
Click to expand...

Like those people who call themselves the US government who are the most violent and rule now.
 
Samwise said:
Like those people who call themselves the US government who are the most violent and rule now.
Click to expand...

Somewhat. After a long, long, long, time, we managed to get those who ruled to start justifying themselves, and after another long, long, long, time we managed to invert the power structure, so that power flows from the ruled to the rulers. One doesn't take power in the U.S. government by exerting violence over others, now, but by convincing those others to choose to grant it to you.
 
cpwill said:
Somewhat. After a long, long, long, time, we managed to get those who ruled to start justifying themselves, and after another long, long, long, time we managed to invert the power structure, so that power flows from the ruled to the rulers. One doesn't take power in the U.S. government by exerting violence over others, now, but by convincing those others to choose to grant it to you.
Click to expand...

But these broken and sinful people rule us?
 
jimbo said:
Senate should either be eliminated or returned to its initial purpose of representing the states.
Click to expand...

The Senate definitely needs to be returned to the original purpose.
 
eliminating the Senate is too stupid to even consider. eliminating political parties isn't.
 
Helix said:
eliminating the Senate is too stupid to even consider. eliminating political parties isn't.
Click to expand...

First, let's define terms. What's a political party?
 
Samwise said:
First, let's define terms. What's a political party?
Click to expand...

that's a stupid question. however, let's really dig into the obvious. what do you think that a political party is?
 
Helix said:
that's a stupid question. however, let's really dig into the obvious. what do you think that a political party is?
Click to expand...
No idea. You brought up eliminating political parties. I'm simply asking you to define your terms. What is a political party?
 
Samwise said:
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
Click to expand...

There is no legitimate reason for abolishing the Senate (arbitrarily increasing the power of coastal elites is not a legitimate reason), therefore it should not be abolished.

cpwill said:
power flows from the ruled to the rulers
Click to expand...

This is not now nor has it ever been the case in any society with more than a hundred or so people. It is not possible for power to remain equally distributed among all members of the population. Control over opinion (which dictates the results of elections) inevitably centralizes. And in advanced democracies, an army of immovable bureaucrats eventually forms, allowing opinion-controllers to bypass the public entirely.
 
Samwise said:
I've heard it said that the moon is a harsh mistress.

I'm still curious whether or not @Haymarket will chime in. He asked me to create this thread...
Click to expand...
haymarket said:
If you start a thread with that as the topic, I will read it and perhaps I may expound on the matter.

But I have too much respect for the rules to hijack this current thread.
Click to expand...

I do not support eliminating the Senate.

Expanding the OP topic to include our voting processes for public offices, I support more rigorous focus and efforts to increase the integrity of our election processes.

The Florida debacle in 2000 regarding Bush v. Gore and it's ultimate conclusion, IMO, remains controversial.

Again IMO, we would benefit from tinkering with the Electoral College to reduce the occurrences of faithless electors. In 2016, while not a significant game-changer in the final results that election, I believe 7 electoral votes went uncounted.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
 
Samwise said:
No idea. You brought up eliminating political parties. I'm simply asking you to define your terms. What is a political party?
Click to expand...

Have you ever googled? It can be scary at first, but the next thing you know, you're used to it. Then you find yourself ordering stuff from the Amazons. It's a slippery slope.
 
In the coming decades, the liberals will probably abolish the Electoral College and the Senate.

Presidents will be elected by popular vote, and the House will be the sole legislative branch.

Like it or not, the future belongs to the liberals.

Those Americans who do not like it will have to grin and bear it or emigrate.
 
Helix said:
Have you ever googled? It can be scary at first, but the next thing you know, you're used to it. Then you find yourself ordering stuff from the Amazons. It's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
I do NOT support eliminating the US Senate.
 
haymarket said:
I do NOT support eliminating the US Senate.
Click to expand...

39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters should have the same representation in the Senate?
 
AmNat said:
cpwill said:
power flows from the ruled to the rulers
Click to expand...
This is not now nor has it ever been the case in any society with more than a hundred or so people. It is not possible for power to remain equally distributed among all members of the population. Control over opinion (which dictates the results of elections) inevitably centralizes. And in advanced democracies, an army of immovable bureaucrats eventually forms, allowing opinion-controllers to bypass the public entirely.
Click to expand...

You appear to have mis-read. Nowhere did I state that in our current system of government power is equally distributed among all members of the population :).
 
Samwise said:
39.5 million Californians and 0.6 million Vermonters should have the same representation in the Senate?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. They have wildly different representation in the House, where population is accounted for.
 
TheParser said:
In the coming decades, the liberals will probably abolish the Electoral College and the Senate.

Presidents will be elected by popular vote, and the House will be the sole legislative branch.

Like it or not, the future belongs to the liberals.

Those Americans who do not like it will have to grin and bear it or emigrate.
Click to expand...

While it's always possible - neither of those are plausible, as both would require constitutional amendments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom